The frequency at which Apple is seeding new pre-release builds of its second update to the Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard operating system is increasing rapidly, suggesting an official release may be imminent.

Fresh on the heels of build 9C20, which was released as a private distribution earlier this week, the Cupertino-based Mac maker on Thursday issued its latest revision of the software update labeled Mac OS X 10.5.2 build 9C23.

Like the previous seed, the new build is reported to have been accompanied by a set of developer documentation listing no known issues. The documentation also implies that any concerns regarding the update's affect on the X11 X Window System have also been alleviated.

As a result, build 9C23 has seen its list of core focus areas reduced from 11 to 10, of which the remaining targets include Active Directory, AirPort, Back To My Mac, Dock, Finder, Graphics Drivers, Safari, SMB, Spotlight and Time Machine.

In addition, a half-dozen new code corrections have added, bringing the total number of documented fixes to the Leopard operating system expected in the 10.5.2 release to just shy of 125.

Among the latest are fixes for Time Machine, keyboard support, DVD playback and background images.

Joining the litany of minor tweaks in Mac OS X 10.5.2 are a handful of subtle feature additions, which include support for Remote Disc optical drive sharing on existing Macs, a list view in Stacks, and support for Apple's new Time Capsule backup appliance.

Using history as a guide, the 10.5.1 update came out 3 days after the last build (there were stil some minor issues left) and the 10.4.11 update came out 21 days after the last build was released (there was no known issues with that build).

The last Tiger update was released the day before Leopard which gives precedence that Apple will hold off a ready update. This is the 2nd 10.5.2 build that has had no known issues. As I've stated before, unless Apple has some marketing reason to delay this update there is no reason we shouldn't see this tomorrow.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Watch out, you can easily get into an argument that Mac OSX's updates are like Windows' Hotfixes and Windows' Service Packs are more in tune with new versions of Mac OS X.

And like with most arguments along these lines, the truth lies somewhere between. Windows' SPs are much more than OSX point releases, both in terms of what they fix and what they add, but no way in hell are they even close to what, for example, Leopard is to Tiger.

I can see that. There's really no straightforward comparison between how Apple and MS does their updates, they're just different in many ways.

Well my original point is that the amount of fixes in this update comes pretty close in my book to a major update like an MS Service Pack, and it only took Apple about 2 months to come up with, whereas Vista came out over a year ago and the Service Pack is nowhere to be seen till the middle of this year....though I could be wrong...

Well my original point is that the amount of fixes in this update comes pretty close in my book to a major update like an MS Service Pack, and it only took Apple about 2 months to come up with, whereas Vista came out over a year ago and the Service Pack is nowhere to be seen till the middle of this year....though I could be wrong...

This update is unique in that it has 125 fixes. Usually they only have 2-3 dozen.

Has anyone read the reports that Vista is more secure than OS X or LInux because Vista has posted less security fixes? Now that is an back-asswards way of looking at sonething.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I've had my Leopard disc in hand since release day, but I've held off on installing it onto either of my 2 Macs, simply because I had too much stuff going on, including quite a bit of unattended number crunching, and it wasn't a good time to be messing around. With the 10.5.2 update, I think it'll be time to go ahead and upgrade both, as hopefully anything majorly problematic for me will be sorted out in the time between installing 10.5.0, and running the updater to 10.5.2. So, in other words...yay!

Well my original point is that the amount of fixes in this update comes pretty close in my book to a major update like an MS Service Pack, and it only took Apple about 2 months to come up with, whereas Vista came out over a year ago and the Service Pack is nowhere to be seen till the middle of this year....though I could be wrong...

or, just to play devil's advocate, Apple has far, far fewer hardware configurations and total control over those hardware configurations to ensure full compatibility with the update than Microsoft does with Vista. The job Microsoft has to fix problems is significantly more complicated than it is for Apple.

Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.

or, just to play devil's advocate, Apple has far, far fewer hardware configurations and total control over those hardware configurations to ensure full compatibility with the update than Microsoft does with Vista. The job Microsoft has to fix problems is significantly more complicated than it is for Apple.

Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.

Microsoft doesn't typically roll out hardware compatibility updates with Service Packs, those come through driver updates. The argument about OS compatibility being easier on Apple's hardware because it is more controlled isn't necessarily true, though OS stability could be easily blamed on this.

However, for hardware that comes from Dell, HP, & Sony the stability claim doesn't make much since as Microsoft should be well aware of the hardware that these companies are putting out into the market.

In my personal experience, though Macs do goof up sometimes, it has never been anything major that couldn't be completely resolved in less than 15 min. For Windows it is almost never less than an hour ordeal. With Apple moving towards a fully certified Unix environment the stability should greatly increase as they are now conforming to a set of standards that Steve Jobs did not write...nothing personal.

That may be true, but I also don't think they're going to leave their new Air users out in the cold over the weekend without the wireless optical software for the other Macs.

You don't need to be running 10.5.2 to use Remote Disc. If you have 10.5.2 the software is already there, which means you don't need to use the installation disc, but if you are running an earlier version of OS X or Windows you will need the Remote Disc to install the appropriate software. Apple won't delay 10.5.2 just because it's a Friday as they've released plenty of updates on Friday before.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Buy a new camera to get a free program. That's silly if that person already has one like it. Am I missing something here?

I'd think that Apple should be adding their support for that camera soon, it's about five months old now. I don't see the point in using the camera brand's photo program when Apple's programs usually do better overall, support for specific cameras notwithstanding.

Hmmm and Microsoft is STILL working to release SP1 for Vista in 6 months' time.

Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...

Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof

Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.

That doesn't mean Apple does a bad job. Apple actually does a very good job. 10.5.0 should have been 10.5.1, which includes some essential fixes. That said, the Leopard release has met the mark on quality. Soon, it will deserve the label of "ultra-stable."

Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...

You're really making the assumption of "better tested" based on the size of an update? Based on what I've heard from users, Vista seems to have bigger and more serious problems than Leopard so far. It just looks like MS is better at making their update size smaller, or that they just aren't fixing as many things as quickly.

I just wish they would make Mail more stable. I've had to Force Quit Mail more times than I've had to shut down my Macbook. It only manages two POP e-mails and one Micrsoft Exchange E-mail, and it rarely closes out properly, which has become really annoying.

I just wish they would make Mail more stable. I've had to Force Quit Mail more times than I've had to shut down my Macbook. It only manages two POP e-mails and one Micrsoft Exchange E-mail, and it rarely closes out properly, which has become really annoying.

I might have to try out Entourage '08 to see if it's any more stable.

Apple Mail in Leopard is very stable for me, both on MacBook Pro and G5.

You might want to check out the discussions in Apple Support to improve stability.

Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.

No one outside of redmond knows how many vistas have been activated, that is the closest thing to a real metric for this: can you really count all those licenses that have been force bundled and not used? and the huge number of corporate licenses that count as "sales" that happen automatically on the day of release to all MVLS/SA customers? and what about Technet and MSDN unused licenses? that a part of your 50 mill as well?

You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.

Using history as a guide, the 10.5.1 update came out 3 days after the last build (there were stil some minor issues left) and the 10.4.11 update came out 21 days after the last build was released (there was no known issues with that build).

The last Tiger update was released the day before Leopard which gives precedence that Apple will hold off a ready update. This is the 2nd 10.5.2 build that has had no known issues. As I've stated before, unless Apple has some marketing reason to delay this update there is no reason we shouldn't see this tomorrow.

Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.

Wrong! In Leopard, there are huge under the hood changes: 64 bitness, Core Animation, Image Kit, significant changes in Objective-C runtime, Objective-C 2.0 with garbage collection and a number of other features, and so on... There are a lot of bundled applications and system components, including Finder, that went through significant changes or were rewritten from the ground up.

The release schedule (and the release cycle) of Mac OS X and Windows is so different that all these questions like "Is a point release a service pack or kind of a monthly patch, and the major releases like Tiger and Leopard ARE the service packs" are plain stupid.

Traditionally, when Apple sends a new OS version for production it starts working on an update immediately and it is released almost alongside the OS release. Then a chain of updates follows, which often may be viewed as bug release/feature enhancements and bug release sequence.

In general, Mac OS has a much faster development cycle and THIS is the major thread for Microsoft. Hypothetically, as an extreme example, a new processor architecture with significant advantages over the existing ones would be deadly for Microsoft. The only good news for them is that this is unlikely for now.

Regarding the update size, many seems don't take into an account that Leopard is a 4-way universal binary (32 bit Intel, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 64 bit PowerPC). Tiger was not, and there were separate updates for Intel and PowerPC. Windows is not either.

i'm trying to remember if Apple ever released an entirely new program as part of an OS update. i don't think so ... but could be wrong.

and Apple has iTunes on its own much more frequent independent update sequence since it has so much to do with iPod/iPhone/Apple TV.

so ... let's wait for both the 10.5.2 and Service Pack 1 updates to actually be released soon, see what they both in fact contain, and THEN debate how a Mac OS update compares in scope to a Windows Service Pack. you know, based on the current facts ...